the new solar system - page3

• by Juan Revilla

We have the case of Pluto, which was discovered by a combination of mathematics and "chance". Many astronomers believe that if at the moment of its discovery its physical characteristics had been known as today, it would have never been classified as "the ninth planet". Pluto was discovered and was called a "major" planet as a result of notions that were later proved to be wrong.

The process by which a new planet is discovered, receives its name, and is given astrological characteristics, is heavily mediated by history, culture, and economy. Each new astronomical discovery that transforms our vision of the solar system has its corresponding historical reality.

There is a lot in history that repeats itself, but there is also the new, and corresponding to this, new astrological elements appear or are added to the language, facilitating the symbolic representation and manipulation of new social, historical, economical, and psychological realities.

It would be quite absurd to pretend that, having discovered Pluto and ascertained at that time --as it has been done much later-- that it was not a "major" planet by any means, then all astrologers should have refrained from including it in their calculations simply because it was possible to practice astrology without it, or because nobody knew at the moment what it really meant, or because it was too odd and too small!

This is clearly the attitude of many astrologers today with respect to asteroids. Since their meaning is not clear or what others say about them seems trivial, then it follows that they don't mean anything important! Since I can practice astrology without them, then who needs them? Since they are so small, then their "influence" must be very weak! Since they are so many, it would be foolish to pretend working with 10,000 bodies! We must distinguish the trees from the forest, the branches from the trunk, the wheat from the straw!...

All these prejudices result from pretending to understand a new element with cognitive tools that are old. Personal investigation soon destroys the mental equation "size=strength". Pluto is the first to break this prejudice and teaches us that it is probably its orbit (large eccentricity and very slow "long-wave" motion) what gives Pluto its astrological characteristics and its power. By the same token, careful work with very slow asteroids of high eccentricity puts in evidence that size has nothing to do with the strength or transcendence of an astrological body.

NOTE: In practical terms --as opposed to merely theoretical-- asteroids do not represent complexity in astrology in contrast with simplicity. It is your approach to the chart or your technique of analysis what makes it simple or complicated.

Many people just keep adding asteroids to the chart and approach it technically in the same way as when dealing with only ten planets. Some even combine them with Uranians, midpoints, etc., and do not distinguish the different domains in which asteroids work. My mind is very alien to that type of mixture, and from my personal perspective, it is wrong.

Technically, I apply a very strict version of Occam's razor, based on the technique of focal determination. For example: an asteroid in very close (less than 1 degree) conjunction with the Sun or the Moon, is the utmost of simplicity and essentiality astrologically speaking. It is very simple and basic Astrology, simpler than using rulerships or using wider (3-4 degrees or more) orbs, not to mention houses, rulerships, minor aspects, hypotheticals, etc. The question of "simplicity vs complexity" does not depend on using asteroids or not. In my opinion, pretending that the use of asteroids means including hundreds or thousands of new points in a chart is one good example of what I call "trying to understand the new with cognitive tools that are old".

Homeopathy may be a useful analogy. The higher the potency (=less "matter") the deeper and stronger the effects. Homeopathic doses, physically insignificant, can be very powerful. Likewise, we may die as a result of a mosquito bite. The immune system and viruses may be another analogy. Without them or because of them we live or die. Small size and great numbers do not mean "insignificant" or unimportant by any means...

Weakness is powerful, and an asteroid in exact conjunction with the Moon or the Sun (for example), is not "waste", nor weak: it is gold.

The use of asteroids seems absurd a priori because of their great number, but this simply means that the usual methods of analyzing a chart cannot be applied indiscriminately when working with asteroids. New methods are required, new strategies, a lot of patience, and an open mind willing to investigate and not be afraid of chaos.